Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sasquatch2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    236

    not all republicans suck...

    I used to hate Dubbya... now he's my hero! Looks like he's going to make it easier to gain MTB access in national parks with some deregulation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

    http://blogs.lancasteronline.com/pot...untain-biking/

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtobikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    72
    Maybe he can save face?
    MTOBikes.com

    Keep the rubber side down!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    953
    It would be great to obtain some more trails and/or dirt roads in the NP's for mt bikes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,let's see if W really does get this program up and running, nothing usually happens fast when the government is involved. W still needs to fully pardon Scooter among other more important political agendas, don't hold your breath

  4. #4
    The Bubble Wrap Hysteria
    Reputation: mtnbiker4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,169
    He may open trails but it's ignorant mtn bikers that get them closed.

  5. #5
    Probably drunk right now
    Reputation: Ken in KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,767

    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker4life
    He may open trails but it's ignorant mtn bikers that get them closed.
    I guess I admit to ignorance. I'm not sure how mountain bikers get trails that are currently closed to mountain biking closed. Or more closed?

  6. #6
    The Bubble Wrap Hysteria
    Reputation: mtnbiker4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken in KC
    I guess I admit to ignorance. I'm not sure how mountain bikers get trails that are currently closed to mountain biking closed. Or more closed?
    They get them closed when they can't play nicely with other trail users. I've seen it happen here in NorCal. Land managers open sections of trails to mtn bikers or launch pilot programs and the end result is too often a "no-go" for mtn bikers. Their is a lot of good being done by user groups only to be spoiled by a few.

  7. #7
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,453
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbiker4life
    They get them closed when they can't play nicely with other trail users. I've seen it happen here in NorCal. Land managers open sections of trails to mtn bikers or launch pilot programs and the end result is too often a "no-go" for mtn bikers. Their is a lot of good being done by user groups only to be spoiled by a few.
    I thought mountain bike trails were for mountain bikers... seriously, I don't think they are talking multi use trails. This policy would allow the Park Manager to decide if mtb trails were appropriate, as opposed to someone in Washington deciding for the whole Park Service.

    Whether BrockO will let it stand is another matter.
    A Useful Bear is a handy thing.

  8. #8
    wanna dance?
    Reputation: HotBlack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,075
    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb
    This policy would allow the Park Manager to decide if mtb trails were appropriate, as opposed to someone in Washington deciding for the whole Park Service.
    The concern with this is, it's not uncommon for a park to open mtb trails to gain revenue, but then realize the cost of maintaining those trails greatly outweighs the revenue they're pulling in, so they either close them, or worse, just let them go to hell, which quickly becomes a gleaming example of how MTBers trash trails in the eyes of other land managers and users. When it's perceived that there's money to be made, and little oversight, conservation often quickly flies out the window, and we're left with a mess.

    Also, I'm all for "smaller government" as republicans love to talk about, but this takes the overhead (all the lobbying, all the legal fees) of making that decision once, in one place, and multiplies it by the number of parks in the entire country, greatly multiplying the amount of work we're asking another part of the government to do, and increasing the cost all across the nation. Guess I shouldn't be surprised though, considering the fattening of the Gov sow in the last 8 years under this guy...

    If I were only concerned with my own good time, I wouldn't care about anything but having more trails to ride.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by HotBlack
    The concern with this is, it's not uncommon for a park to open mtb trails to gain revenue, but then realize the cost of maintaining those trails greatly outweighs the revenue they're pulling in, so they either close them, or worse, just let them go to hell, which quickly becomes a gleaming example of how MTBers trash trails in the eyes of other land managers and users. When it's perceived that there's money to be made, and little oversight, conservation often quickly flies out the window, and we're left with a mess.

    Also, I'm all for "smaller government" as republicans love to talk about, but this takes the overhead (all the lobbying, all the legal fees) of making that decision once, in one place, and multiplies it by the number of parks in the entire country, greatly multiplying the amount of work we're asking another part of the government to do, and increasing the cost all across the nation. Guess I shouldn't be surprised though, considering the fattening of the Gov sow in the last 8 years under this guy...

    If I were only concerned with my own good time, I wouldn't care about anything but having more trails to ride.
    This whole deal is funny in that it appears to be a gift that people really like, but coming from someone you really really don't like. So you get a thread like this creatively trying to find out why this gift is crap.

    The outright ban on National Parks trails was enacted in the 80's when mountain biking was new and not organized to protest. It was unfair from the start imo.

    Me personally i don't like Bush's policies, it's pretty apparent that a huge majority doesn't. But having known he enjoyed mountain biking, i would sometimes gripe he hadn't really accomplished anything for mountain biking. Now he has, and now i cannot make that particular gripe.

    i'm not real certain how many more miles of trails this will really effect though. Considering that many National Parks have land that is Wilderness Designation in our state, which supersedes this decision. And also it's up to each park, the decision is not a gimme, and i'm sure park officials will make a more educated decision than deciding on revenue alone. i'm sure they will have feedback from the public.

    But the very fact that the dialogue is enabled, that mountain bikers have the possibility. For that i think this is a no-brainer positive for mountain bikers.

    Besides from the terrible economy we will have we'll all be unemployed and have plenty of time to volunteer time for trail work at the National Parks trails that are newly opened to us! haha....
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  10. #10
    wanna dance?
    Reputation: HotBlack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Skookum
    This whole deal is funny in that it appears to be a gift that people really like, but coming from someone you really really don't like.

    i'm sure park officials will make a more educated decision than deciding on revenue alone. i'm sure they will have feedback from the public.
    1. from your example, it sounds like you're the one unhappy that this decision is coming from someone you don't like. I care not who makes this decision, it's pointless at best, and appears to me to have a greater potential for being destructive long-term than anything.

    2. I can't imagine what makes you sure of that, considering how many landowners across the country have, for twenty or so years, made their more educated decisions and had them wind up just as I described.

    I like that it potentially shoots holes in an outright ban, by shifting the power to a local level, cause I immediately like the idea there might be more preserved areas in which I could ride, but I don't like thinking of all the times we've been given enough rope to hang ourselves, and anxiously gone straight out and done it, and what that'll mean when it happens in NPs. One single decision on a federal level allowing us a level of access in NP's would be a much less expensive, and much less volatile. For as long as people have been working toward that, it seems a shame to abandon it to throw all the cards up in the air...

    I'm no Bush fan, but none of these concerns have anything to do with which president puts this through.

  11. #11
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,453
    Quote Originally Posted by HotBlack

    I like that it potentially shoots holes in an outright ban, by shifting the power to a local level, cause I immediately like the idea there might be more preserved areas in which I could ride, but I don't like thinking of all the times we've been given enough rope to hang ourselves, and anxiously gone straight out and done it, and what that'll mean when it happens in NPs. One single decision on a federal level allowing us a level of access in NP's would be a much less expensive, and much less volatile. For as long as people have been working toward that, it seems a shame to abandon it to throw all the cards up in the air...
    You have obviously had different experiences than I. I have found that things are usually easier done at a local level, and better. I wasn't aware that we were seeking access to sensitive areas, or any other areas that are not appropriate for mtbing.

    I would be interested to know of examples of where we "hung ourselves," as you put it.

    Seriously.
    A Useful Bear is a handy thing.

  12. #12
    Recovering
    Reputation: jbogner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,483
    Really, all this does is put discretion in the hands of the local park superintendent, rather than requiring the long and drawn-out rulemaking process with public hearings and the like. It's a good decision that gives mountain bikes parity with hikers and equestrians, not some grand scheme to hang mountain bikers and say "I told you so." National park superintendents are still going to do the smart thing that current forest service land managers do- nothing, until they're approached by a local mountain bike advocacy group with a solid plan for implementing and maintaining trails.

    As far as republicans go, one of our republican state senators has pledged $100k to our trailbuilding efforts on Staten Island, so clearly mountain biking transcends mere politics. It's best for mountain biking to have friends on both sides of the aisle...
    Former New Yorker, now in Fort Collins
    http://www.nycmtb.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •